7.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Tabarik Malsagova, born in 1952;
2) Ms Zulikhan Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1978;
3) Ms Shovda Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1987;
4) Ms Tamila Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1983;
5) Ms Yakha Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1974;
6) Mrs Kometa Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1973; and
7) Mr Tamerlan Mayrsoltovich Malsagov, born in 1983.
They live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.
8.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Saydi Mayrsoltovich Malsagov, born in 1980. The other applicants are the first applicant’s children and siblings of Saydi Malsagov. The applicants live in their family house at 22 Shvernika Street, Urus-Martan.
9.  At about 2 a.m. on 7 November 2002 a group of about twenty-five or thirty masked men in camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the Malsagovs’ house. They were armed with machine guns and sniper rifles with optical sights; they spoke Russian without accent. The armed men did not identify themselves but the applicants inferred that they belonged to the Russian military. The servicemen did not produce any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations.
10.  The first applicant was sleeping in one room with her two granddaughters aged seven and nine and the fourth applicant. In another room Saydi Malsagov was sleeping with his wife, Ms S. The seventh applicant and his father Mayrsolt Malsagov (who died in October 2003) were sleeping in the third room.
11.  The first and the fourth applicants were awakened by a group of servicemen who walked into their room, turned on the lights and ordered them to remain in bed and not to move. Two men searched the wardrobes in the room while the third stood at the doors on guard. The servicemen did not talk to the women. Once they had finished searching, two servicemen left and went to the adjacent room where Saydi Malsagov and Ms S. were. In about ten minutes five or six servicemen again entered the room and walked up to the first applicant’s bed. The two granddaughters of the first applicant were frightened and started to cry, and the first applicant asked the soldiers not to hurt the children. The soldiers told her that they were there just to check. Then they left the room and closed the door from the outside.
12.  Five minutes later the seventh applicant and his father entered the women’s room. Together they went into Saydi Malsagov’s room. There they saw his wife who was sitting on the floor by her bed and crying. Belongings and beds had been thrown around. Ms S. said that the military had taken her husband away. They also took audio and videotapes, some papers and Saydi Malsagov’s medical record.
13.  The seventh applicant stated that on 7 November 2002 at about 2.30 a.m. five men in camouflage or black uniforms armed with machine guns had entered the room where he and his father were sleeping and asked for his passport. The seventh applicant was ordered to lie on the floor. One of the servicemen read out his full name and the seventh applicant confirmed that it was him. Then the servicemen searched the rooms without saying what they were looking for and left in about ten minutes. They told the seventh applicant to remain on the floor and not to move. The seventh applicant heard them break down the door to the next room. About five minutes later three men entered the room and again asked the applicant for an identity document. The seventh applicant replied that his passport had already been checked and the men left without saying anything. After about fifteen minutes he heard the servicemen leaving. Once it was quiet, he went into the main house and saw his mother and sister. Together they went into his brother’s room and his wife told them that Saydi Malsagov had been taken away. The seventh applicant went into the courtyard and then into the street, but did not see anyone; there was not even any noise of vehicles.
14.  Ms S. stated that the servicemen had entered their room and ordered them to lie still. Then they told Saydi Malsagov to stand up and get dressed. He was permitted to put on his shoes and a jacket, and then the servicemen escorted him out of the room, taking along his documents and some items from the room. They did not explain anything and did not answer any questions.
15.  The applicants submitted a statement by their neighbour Ms Sh. On 7 November 2002 at about 3 a.m. she heard the dogs barking and looked out of the window at the street. She saw a line of armed people walking in the street from the Malsagovs’ house towards Magomed-Merzoyeva Street. There were about ten of them, wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. Then everything went quiet. In the morning the witness learnt that the military had taken Saydi Malsagov away.
16.  The applicants have had no news of their son and brother Saydi Malsagov since that day. 2.  The Government’s account
The Government submitted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had established that on the night of 6 to 7 November 2002 unidentified persons armed with machine guns had entered the applicants’ house at 22 Shvernika Street, Urus-Martan, and kidnapped Saydi Malsagov.
17.  Following Saydi Malsagov’s disappearance the applicants repeatedly applied, both in person and in writing, to various official bodies, trying to find out the whereabouts and fate of their relative. They also personally visited places of detention in the Chechen Republic and elsewhere in the North Caucasus. The applications were primarily lodged by the first applicant.
18.  In the morning of 7 November 2002 the first applicant visited the local military commander’s office, the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (“the ROVD”), the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) and the district administration. Everywhere she was told that they did not know who had detained her son or where he was.
19.  On 7 November 2002 the first applicant submitted a written application to the district prosecutor’s office, to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, to the military prosecutors, to the local military commander and to the Office of the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in Chechnya. She also wrote to the NGO Memorial Human Rights Centre. In the letters she stated the details of Saydi Malsagov’s detention and asked for his whereabouts to be established and his release ensured, as well as for a criminal investigation to be opened into his abduction.
20.  On 7 November 2002 the chief executive official of the municipal enterprise APP Energetic where Saydi Malsagov had worked wrote to the head of the district administration and to the military commander asking for assistance in finding and releasing their employee. On 15 November 2002 the district administration forwarded this letter to the ROVD.
21.  On 9 December 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s letter addressed initially to the Special Envoy to the district prosecutor’s office with a request to verify the complaint and to inform the applicant accordingly.
22.  On 17 January 2003 the first applicant wrote to the military commander of Urus-Martan District and asked him to help her find her son.
23.  On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”) forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”).
24.  On 7 April 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to update her on progress in the investigation in case no. 61147.
25.  On 9 April 2003 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the ROVD.
26.  On 17 April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on 13 November 2002 they had opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of her son by unidentified armed men under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). On 13 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify those responsible. The letter further informed the applicant that the ROVD had been instructed to search for Saydi Malsagov more actively.
27.  On 25 April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office again informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended on 13 January 2003.
28.  On 23 May 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office and stated that there were no reasons to suspect the involvement of servicemen in the crime.
29.  On 9 June 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office again forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the unit prosecutor’s office.
30.  On 18 June 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to allow her access to the investigation file in case no. 61147. On 20 June 2003 this permission was granted and the applicant was invited to study the file at the prosecutor’s office during working hours. According to the first applicant, when she inspected the investigation file, she found in it only requests for information sent to different district departments of the interior and replies to these requests denying that they had ever detained Saydi Malsagov. The first applicant was not permitted to take copies of these documents.
31.  On 3 July 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that they had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
32.  On 23 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office and instructed him to conduct a careful examination of the first applicant’s complaints.
33.  On 1 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61147 had been resumed on that date.
34.  On 6 August 2003 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic about the decision to suspend the investigation. She referred to the circumstances of her son’s abduction and argued that he must have been detained by some representatives of official bodies, because they had arrived in a large group during curfew hours and wore uniforms similar to those used by Russian servicemen. She requested the prosecutor to oblige the district prosecutor’s office to carry out a number of investigative actions, namely to question servicemen of law enforcement agencies. She also requested that other witnesses to the night raid who could have seen the vehicles in which the abductors had arrived be identified and questioned.
35.  On 6 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office again informed the first applicant that the investigation had taken all possible steps to establish the whereabouts of her son, but that it had now been suspended for failure to identify those responsible.
36.  On 20 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that, in response to her complaints, the decision to suspend the investigation into her son’s abduction had been quashed on 1 August 2003 and the district prosecutor had been instructed to take a number of necessary investigative steps.
37.  On 1 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been again suspended on 1 September 2003. The applicant was informed of the possibility of appeal against the said decision.
38.  On 5 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office notified the applicant of the latest suspension of the investigation.
39.  On 29 September 2003 the first applicant’s complaint was forwarded from the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to the district prosecutor’s office with an instruction to verify the complaints.
40.  On 13 November 2003 the SRJI, acting on the applicants’ behalf, requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform them of the current status of the criminal investigation into Saydi Malsagov’s abduction and to inform the applicants of the results of the investigative steps taken.
41.  On 23 June 2005 the SRJI requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform them of the progress in the investigation into Saydi Malsagov’s kidnapping and to inform the applicants of the results of the investigative steps taken.
42.  On 12 July 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI that the investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime and that the first applicant could study the case file in their premises.
43.  On 13 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal investigation file no. 61147 into the kidnapping of Saydi Malsagov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code.
44.  On 19 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office asked the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic (“the Chechen FSB”) and all district and town departments of the interior in the Chechen Republic whether they had any information concerning Saydi Malsagov’s kidnappers. They received negative replies.
45.  On 19 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office questioned the first applicant as a witness. She submitted that at 3 a.m. on 7 November 2002 ten or twelve men had entered her house and had locked her in a room with her daughter. When she had got out of the room, she had discovered that the armed men had taken her son away. She had not heard any armoured vehicles. Nothing had been stolen from her house. None of her family members had been assaulted.
46.  On 13 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status.
47.  On 13 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 61147 for failure to identify those responsible and ordered the ROVD to take more active investigative measures to solve the crime.
48.  On 12 February 2003 the first applicant was notified of the decision to suspend the investigation and was advised of her right to appeal against it.
49.  On 16 April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office received the first applicant’s request to take measures to establish her son’s whereabouts and to inform her of the progress in the investigation.
50.  On 25 April 2003 the first applicant was notified of the suspension of the investigation.
51.  On 19 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office received the first applicant’s request for access to the case file. On 20 June 2003 they replied that she could study the documents at any time.
52.  On 1 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 13 January 2003, resumed the investigation and informed the first applicant accordingly.
53.  On 1 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Ms S. as a witness. She submitted that on the night of 6 to 7 November 2002 unidentified masked men with machine guns had entered their home, ordered her to lie on the floor, searched the house and taken her husband away. On the same date the district prosecutor’s office questioned the seventh applicant as a witness. He submitted that at about 2 a.m. on the night of 6 to 7 November 2002 around twenty-five or thirty armed men had burst into their house and ordered him to produce his identity papers. He had replied that the papers were on a table. The men had forced him to the floor and searched the room. When they had left, the seventh applicant had learned that they had taken his brother away.
54.  On 8 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office sent requests for information on Saydi Malsagov’s kidnapping to all law enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic. The military commander’s office of Urus-Martan District, the head of remand prison IZ-20/1, the ROVD and other agencies replied that they had no information on Saydi Malsagov’s whereabouts.
55.  On 1 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 61147 for failure to identify those responsible and ordered the ROVD to take investigative measures more actively in order to solve the crime.
56.  On 5 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant of the decision of 1 September 2003.
57.  On 1 October 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 1 September 2003 and resumed the investigation.
58.  On 15 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed.
59.  On 15 November 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant of the decision.
60.  On 6 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 15 November 2004 and resumed the investigation. On 7 December 2004 the first applicant was notified accordingly.
61.  On 13 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office again questioned the first applicant. She submitted that all perpetrators had been dressed in camouflage uniforms with no insignia. They had walked to their house from the neighbours’ garden. No one had seen their vehicles. The men had entered the room in which the first applicant had been together with her daughter and granddaughters and ordered them not to move. The women had been frightened and had not known whether the door was locked or not. A few minutes later the first applicant had left the room and found out that the men had taken her son away.
62.  On 25 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office requested information on the case from the Chechen FSB.
63.  On 26 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office sent requests for information concerning Saydi Malsagov to a number of remand prisons in different regions of Russia, including remand prison IZ-20/2 in Chernokozovo. On the same date they requested information on Saydi Malsagov from hospitals in different districts of Chechnya.
64.  On 27 December 2004 an investigator of the district prosecutor’s office studied a detainees’ register of the temporary detention facility of the ROVD. The register contained no record of Saydi Malsagov.
65.  On 28 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Mr A., the applicants’ neighbour, as a witness. Mr A. submitted that he had learned of Saydi Malsagov’s kidnapping on the morning of 7 January 2002. On that day he had seen prints of boots on a fresh layer of snow in his back yard. The wirenetting separating his back yard from that of the Malsagovs had been cut. He had not heard any noise on the night of 6 to 7 January 2002. Three other neighbours made similar statements.
66.  On 29 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office questioned the fourth and seventh applicants as witnesses. They made statements similar to that of Mr A. On the same date the district prosecutor’s office granted the fourth applicant victim status.
67.  On 7 January 2005 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 61147 for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first and fourth applicants of the decision.
68.  On 18 January 2005 the district prosecutor’s office were informed that Saydi Malsagov had not been kept in IZ-20/2. At some point they became aware that other remand prisons to which they had sent requests had no information on Saydi Malsagov’s whereabouts.
69.  On 27 January 2005 the Chechen FSB informed the district prosecutor’s office that in 2002 Saydi Malsagov had been an active member of an illegal armed group.
70.  On 15 December 2005 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 7 January 2005 and resumed the investigation.
71.  On 15 January 2006 the investigation in case no. 61147 was suspended.
72.  On 16 March 2006 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the proceedings.
73.  On 27 March 2006 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD, Operational and Search Bureau no. 2, the temporary group of forces of the Ministry of the Interior in the Chechen Republic and the FSB department of the Urus-Martan District to carry out investigative measures to identify the perpetrators. It follows from the replies received that none of these bodies obtained any information.
74.  On 26 March 2006 Ms Z.T., Saydi Malsagov’s niece, was questioned and stated that on the night of her uncle’s kidnapping she had been awakened by a loud knocking on the door and seen several armed masked men in camouflage uniforms standing in the room. They had been speaking Russian. Then the men had left the room and closed the door. Some ten minutes later Ms Z.T. had gone to the courtyard and learned that the men had taken her uncle away.
75.  Between 27 and 29 March 2006 three neighbours of the applicants were questioned as witnesses and stated that they had not seen Saydi Malsagov being taken away but knew him as a decent man.
76.  On 27 March 2006 the district prosecutor’s office sent requests for information on Saydi Malsagov’s arrest or detention to various prosecutors’ offices of towns and districts of the Chechen Republic. The replies received were negative.
77.  On 5 April 2006 the first applicant was again questioned and stated that she had nothing to add to her previous declarations.
78.  On 16 April 2006 the investigation in case no. 61147 was suspended for failure to identify those responsible. On the same day the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD to search for perpetrators more actively.
79.  On 30 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation.
80.  On 30 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD, Operational and Search Bureau no. 2, the temporary group of forces of the Ministry of the Interior in the Chechen Republic and the FSB department of the Urus-Martan District to carry out investigative measures to identify the perpetrators. It follows from the replies received that none of these bodies provided any information.
81.  On 10 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office sent requests concerning Saydi Malsagov to the Achknoy-Martan interdistrict prosecutor’s office, remand prison no. IZ-4/1, the commander of the United Group Alignment and the military commander of the Chechen Republic. These bodies did not have any relevant information.
82.  Between 6 and 21 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office questioned six of the applicants’ neighbours. All of them stated that on the night of Saydi Malsagov’s disappearance they had stayed at home and seen nothing.
83.  On 30 July 2006 the investigation was again suspended.
84.  On 10 April 2008 the Investigative Committee of the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic resumed the investigation and gave a number of instructions to law-enforcement agencies.
85.  Despite a specific request by the Court the Government did not submit a copy of the file in criminal case no. 61147, providing only copies of several decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.